Is Santorum a “big government conservative”?

posted at 1:30 pm on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

When one becomes a front-runner, the scrutiny starts — and Rick Santorum has just stepped into the arena with a surprising and inspiring finish in Iowa. His reward? The closer look every second-tier desires and dreads as a consequence of getting called up to the majors. David Harsanyi spells out the case for conservatives looking to oppose Santorum, calling him a “conservative technocrat”:

Rick Santorum, like most Republican candidates, fashions himself the one true conservative running in 2012. If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government, he’s unquestionably your candidate.

People are taking a look at Santorum. Important people. People in Iowa. Even New York Times columnist David Brooks recently celebrated his working-class appeal, newfound viability and economic populism, noting that the former Pennsylvania senator’s book “It Takes a Family“ was a ”broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism” — or, in other words, a rejection of that Neanderthal fealty for liberty and free markets that has yet to be put down. Santorum’s book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people “will reject” what he has to say “as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”

Santorum grumbles about too many conservatives believing in unbridled “personal autonomy” and subscribing to the “idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do … that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.” …

Today, Santorum tells voters that Medicare is “crushing” the “entire health care system.” In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.

These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It’s not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today.

Fair points all, and these will get threshed out in the next couple of weeks, as they should. Of all the candidates, Rick Perry made the best mainstream anti-Washington argument, but turned out to be a poor debater and a questionable campaigner. Bachmann probably came second, and look where the two of them ended up in Iowa, and where they polled in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire. Ron Paul gets a brief but positive mention in Harsanyi’s piece — but only on his foreign policy, which is anathema to most Republicans. Like it or not, the candidates this time around who have accrued support have mainly been those that represent the establishment-centric viewpoint, a point Jonah Goldberg also makes:

For the last month or so we’ve heard a lot of posturing about the “conservative establishment.” I’ve been pretty skeptical about the uses and abuses of the term. But now that Rick Santorum has replaced Newt Gingrich as the anti-Mitt frontrunner, the term seems even more stale. Santorum has many strengths (and weaknesses), but let’s not insult our intelligence. He is no Washington outsider. The guy has been a fixture of the conservative and Republican establishment — however you want to define the term — for decades. A congressman, senator, radio show host, author, Fox News contributor, leader in the 1994 Contract with America movement, activist, lobbyist, earmarker, endorser of Arlen Specter: This is not some tea party unknown. …

The simple fact is that none of these candidates are ideal and nearly everyone not writing-in Calvin Coolidge is compromising. The problem is people don’t want to admit they’re compromising.

If you want pure anti-establishment, then Ron Paul is your man in this cycle. None of these candidates are without serious flaws, but then again, there really aren’t ever any flawless candidates. Do we aspire to find the least flawed, most capable candidate in the race in primaries? Of course, but that is always graded on a curve, in every cycle.

Santorum’s prescriptions for government solutions for conservative goals should be given a close look, but also, we should hear what Santorum has to say about how he proposes to move forward with them if elected. Until now, no one has paid much attention to Santorum, so he has not had much time to make his case. Harsanyi raises good points, and how Santorum responds will determine whether he can attract a wide base of support or follow the same path of “compassionate conservatism” that provided a dead end to Republicans and conservatives in the last decade. At this point, Santorum’s credentials on the “conservative” part has me at least willing to hear him out.

Can Santorum perform well enough in New Hampshire to get an extended look? Lois Romano thinks the odds are long, but not impossible, and points out the strong Catholic presence in New Hampshire as an opening for Santorum:

With an attentive media contingent in tow, the former Pennsylvania senator hits the ground running with a two-hour town-hall meeting Wednesday night that will be followed by at least 10 more before Tuesday’s primary. He has spent considerable time here—and has an enthusiastic corps of supporters and volunteers in place.

“I’ve spent more time in New Hampshire and done more events than anybody but Jon Huntsman. And the same thing with South Carolina,” he said. “We feel very, very good that we’ve got the organization. And money is coming in better than it’s ever come in. And [after Iowa] we suspect we’ll have the resources to be able not just to compete in New Hampshire, but to compete all the way through.” …

“We know we can build on this momentum,” says Bill Cahill, a co-chair of Santorum’s New Hampshire campaign. “We’re going to make it happen with what we’ve got. We’re not going to staff up. Look, if he can come in at third place, it would be a phenomenon and spectacular. And we think we can make it happen.”

Cahill dismissed the notion that New Hampshire voters may find Santorum too socially conservative with his oppositions to abortion and same-sex marriage. “Conservatives play well in New Hampshire, and his positions on trade, tax policy, and national security are appealing. There’s a very large Catholic and ethnic populations here … The old Reagan coalition is still around for us.”

“We think South Carolina is extremely important, and we’re the only ones who’ve won a straw poll there,” Brabender said yesterday. “But we think that to be a legitimate presidential candidate, you have to, at the very least, be willing to compete in each region of the country. And that includes the Northeast.”

Team Santorum has diagnosed the problem right. Iowa has a history of backing conservative one-hit wonders like Huckabee, Pat Robertson (’88) and Pat Buchanan (’96) before sending them off to electoral irrelevance.

But diagnosing the problem doesn’t guarantee the campaign can find a cure. And Santorum is never — I repeat never — going to be competitive in New Hampshire. There’s a reason moderate-to-liberal Republicans like Jon Huntsman and Buddy Roemer congregate in Concord while social conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry charge on to Columbia, S.C.

The influx of independents and social moderates into the New Hampshire primary dilutes the strength of the conservative GOP base. Having Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Perry slicing it up hurts Santorum, too. Meanwhile Mitt Romney’s looking ever more likely to win big there and wipe out his “moderate” competition.

We’ll soon see. At least Santorum will get the attention for which he has argued — and which may be a curse as well as a blessing now.

Don’t miss Jim Pethokoukis’ excellent look at the difference between the two candidates on economic approaches, and why both may be valid for Republicans in this cycle.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

No. Rush was talking about this earlier. It’s the usual Dem attempt to twist definitions and associate the welfare/nanny state-type of Big Government with the type of government envisioned by the Founders: to protect and insure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I would like to hear Santorum explain how he can oppose personal autonomy, low taxes, limited government, reduced regulations, and keeping government out of our bedrooms, but still consider himself a “conservative.”

Just what is a “big government conservative?” The term is a MFM lie, but let’s play the game.

If Santorum is a big government conservative, it’s because he seeks to use the government to do ONLY what it is constitutionally mandated to do – defense of the realm and our borders, law enforcement and the defense of the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It’s a total BS attack because they are scared shiite-less of him if he goes up against SCOAMF who is in favor of big government, i.e. the socialist leviathan that seeks to control us.

We’ll soon see. At least Santorum will get the attention for which he has argued — and which may be a curse as well as a blessing now.

As a Pennsylvania resident, let me just say that Rick’s Greatest Hits – his stances on homosexuality, backing of shoehorning creationism into science class, that whole ugly episode from earlier this week involving his son, some of his more controversial statements and stances – are going to be one helluva good time to run through endlessly on the national stage.

Oh, and his big-government conservatism, support for Tom DeLay’s K-Street Project, etc., are all going to play well.

Alan Colmes did Santorum a HUGE favor. That picture of him and his wife weeping got out the pro-life vote big time.

John the Libertarian on January 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I have my problems with Santorum, but I do find it interesting that the libs are counting on people finding the story of Rick’s son so creepy. Parental love knows no ideology and I’m willing to bet there are many Democrat parents who will sympathize with the Santorums on this and who may have dealt with a child’s death in a similar manner.

Limbaugh today is SERIOUSLY rebutting this charge on Santorum’s behalf. Limbaugh is singing his praises today.

Utica681 on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Limbaugh has been in the “Not Romney” camp for some time. He’s tried not to come out and say it openly (since he has a policy of not throwing his support to or against any Republican in the primaries) but it’s been clear if you listen to his broadcasts, especially after major events like last night’s vote. That is part of the reason why Romney supporters slam Limbaugh constantly.

O/T
Oh no Obama is talking Pie Sweet Potato Pie in his speech about Cordray, someone gave him a sweet potato pie, he’s looking forward to eating his pie later….we all know what it means when he starts talking pie.

Oh, and his big-government conservatism, support for Tom DeLay’s K-Street Project, etc., are all going to play well.

Welcome to the race, Rick.

Good Lt on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

The K Street Project was an attempt to cut the legs out from under the lobbyists who mostly support Democrats and liberal policy; using the system to neutralize your (and the American people’s) enemies. I see that as a positive.

the former Pennsylvania senator’s book “It Takes a Family“ was a ”broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism” — or, in other words, a rejection of that Neanderthal fealty for liberty and free markets that has yet to be put down. Santorum’s book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people “will reject” what he has to say “as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”

People are just projecting conservatism onto Santorum because they want him to be one, kind of like Huckabee.

I carried water for 8 years for Bush and voted for Santorum. Not happening again. Senators like Santorum, even more than Senators like Dodd and Schumer, are the reason the housing bubble inflated. Democrats are supposed to support stupid redistributive economic policies. Republicans are not supposed to logroll with them to promote their pet interests.

None of these guys are fiscal cons. They are all the same people who have been trashing anyone who might threaten their plans to coronate Romney. These are the “era of small government is over!” guys who liked to gloat during the Bush years.

Rush made an excellent point today on his show. He pointed out that the announcement that McCain was going to support Romney came during Santorum’s speech last night. His comment on that was that if you don’t think the establishment is trying to kneecap any conservative in this race, you’d be fooling yourself.

I carried water for 8 years for Bush and voted for Santorum. Not happening again. Senators like Santorum, even more than Senators like Dodd and Schumer, are the reason the housing bubble inflated.

Look, I understand Santorum is probably not your first choice. However, if we don’t get rid of Obamacare, we WILL go bankrupt, and it won’t be “twenty years down the road.” We know from Romney’s record and his recent statements that he is never going to repeal it. We at least have some chance that Santorum might do it – we have absolutely no chance at all with Romney.

Santorum was around during the big-spending Bush years(well, 6 of them anyway). But he was also in the Senate when Clinton and Newt were balancing budgets and reforming welfare. So I’d say at worst it’s a wash for the guy. He also has nothing like Romneycare or 2 divorces to answer for like Mittens and Newt respectively.

If Perry isn’t going to be the nominee and Gingrich is crumbling, then I might as well get behind Mitt. I absolutely refuse to vote for someone who has explicitly said he doesn’t support the idea of personal autonomy. I didn’t think anybody could be worse than Mitt, but Santorum absolutely is.

I mean it. If Santorum is the nominee, then I’m sitting out the election. And considering that I believe Obama to be the worst president of my lifetime, possibly the worst president in history, it takes a truly horrendous candidate to make me sit this election out. Santorum is that candidate.

How is Ron Paul the anti-establishment candidate? He’s put in more years at the Federal level than any other candidate. And while he’s been there he’s not changed the upward trajectory of the National Debt at all. Sure, he’s a kook on foreign policy but he’s an establishment guy when it comes to bringing home the pork and running for re-election every two years.

So, you’ll end up putting Romney in the White House instead. Yeah, THAT will fix it. So many brilliant minds on are side. That must be why we’re always winning.

Gregor on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

What, Santorum is suddenly a serious candidate because he kissed every baby in Iowa?

He has no shot at all to beat Romney and even less to beat Obama. He wouldn’t have a chance even if he was a conservative – did you click my link? “The Santorum Amendment” alone would make him a laughingstock – never mind how the public will react to his obsession with gays. And they will react, because he’s demonstrated an inability to shut up about them.

It’s still down to Gingrich and (in case of a surprise SC comeback that’s looking increasingly unlikely) Perry.

Santorum was around during the big-spending Bush years(well, 6 of them anyway). But he was also in the Senate when Clinton and Newt were balancing budgets and reforming welfare. So I’d say at worst it’s a wash for the guy. He also has nothing like Romneycare or 2 divorces to answer for like Mittens and Newt respectively.

Doughboy on January 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I hate that Newt’s divorces are lumped in with Romneycare as evidence of “they all suck”.

Newt could get married and divorced every week from now until the end of time it wouldn’t affect my life or yours one bit. Romneycare on the other hand gave way to Obamacare. Which will make all our lives worse for many years to come.

Anti Rombots, its not the moderate positions that kills your truecon candidates its the self righteousness which leads to hypocrisies and ultimately disappointment.

swamp_yankee on January 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Proud Anti_Rombot here…..I kind of like that. I think I’ll print myself a t-shirt that says that. Of course there is absolutely nothing inconsistent in calling Romney a conservative, now is there. All of his policy IS consistent. It’s just that it is consistently what Obama would have done if he were Governor of Massachusetts.

I don’t want America turned into what Mitt turned Massachusetts into.

Santorum isn’t perfect. But he is a hell of lot better than anything out there.

Rick Santorum is the walking embodiment of Bush-era big-government social conservatism and foreign nation-building. He represents all that went wrong with the GOP and the conservative movement under Bush. And he has ZERO leadership experience. It would be absolutely insane to nominate him. I’ve been in the Anyone But Romney camp since day one, but if it comes down to a Romney vs. Santorum contest, Romney wins that showdown by a country mile. They are both statists, but at least Romney has a sterling record in the private sector, executive experience, and will make this election a referendum on Obama. Rick Santorum would 1.) make this election a referendum on the GOP’s social conservative policies; and 2.) Allow Obama to tie our nominee to Congressional gridlock (the institution currently earning the approval of a whopping 11% of Americans). Santorum would be an unmitigated disaster.

I hate that Newt’s divorces are lumped in with Romneycare as evidence of “they all suck”.

Newt could get married and divorced every week from now until the end of time it wouldn’t affect my life or yours one bit. Romneycare on the other hand gave way to Obamacare. Which will make all our lives worse for many years to come.

angryed on January 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Oh, Newt’s got plenty of other baggage. But the divorces will be hyped ad nauseum if he were the nominee. And don’t think for one second that wouldn’t hurt him badly with social conservatives and women voters.

Any candidate who believes (whether they verbally admit to it or not) that federal government has a duty and the power to regulate/mandate social behavior beyond what is constitutionally allowed…Should be thought of as highly suspect.

Anyone remember prohibition?
Anyone at all?

Santorum referring to gay sex as “man-dog”, seems to forget that men and women perform those types of acts on each other all the time. No one ever complains, nor do most people ever know. The act results in no children being created, and yet social cons could care less, but if it’s “gay” sex, social cons scream about “IT’S UNNATURAL BECAUSE NO CHILDREN ARE BEING CREATED!” — I call BS.

Individuals have a right to believe, think, and do as they wish, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF CIVIL/CRIMINAL LAWS. What two consenting adults agree to do (sexually) is no more the business of federal governmen, that it is for the obama “food police” to tell each of us what we can and can’t eat.

If we REALLY want to go down this road as conservatives…We had better prepare for what happens when the opposition gets a-hold of such power.

We have bigger fish to fry right now, and will for the foreseeable future. Santorum seems govt involvement in social issues will fix everything.

He takes his dead child to bed with he and his wife. How ever you feel about that, it will be grossly exploited, and will turn off moderates republicans, independents and disaffected democrats. Let’s not forget that he also wants to end birth control and the right to privacy. Now, that’s not very mainstream…is it?

Do we aspire to find the least flawed, most capable candidate in the race in primaries? Of course, but that is always graded on a curve, in every cycle.

Not only on a curve, but on personal perceptions of what’s important.

Secondly, is it safe to say that conservatism has moved further rightward as liberalism has moved further left? And as such, what was considered pretty conservative thought during the Clinton administration might be considered fairly moderate now. Is it fair to allow candidates to tack right with the movement, or should they be forever pigeonholed based upon past positions?

When will you do a piece on Romneycare and how abortions are paid for and Planned Parenthood by Ronmneycare law, has a seat on the Romneycare board? When? Why isn’t Right to life on that board?

coach1228 on January 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM

He had a Dem legislature. What could he do? When he’s president with a Democrat legislature he’ll be totally conservative and stuff. It’s on his web site. Ignore what he did as governor, only believe what his web site says.

Oh, Newt’s got plenty of other baggage. But the divorces will be hyped ad nauseum if he were the nominee. And don’t think for one second that wouldn’t hurt him badly with social conservatives and women voters.

Doughboy on January 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Maybe. I don’t see social cons caring that much over this. They wouldn’t like it but is it enough to make them sit out a Newt/Obama match up? I don’t think so.

Women voters…the same women voters that voted for Clinton 60/40 knowing full well he was a serial adulterer? Again, I don’t buy it.

Rush made an excellent point today on his show. He pointed out that the announcement that McCain was going to support Romney came during Santorum’s speech last night. His comment on that was that if you don’t think the establishment is trying to kneecap any conservative in this race, you’d be fooling yourself.

KickandSwimMom on January 4, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Good grief, Santorum is not a conservative. No one running in the GOP primary this year is a conservative. They are ALL compromise candidates. You don’t want Romney? Fine. You don’t want Gingrich? Fine. No to Perry? Fine. But stop with the pretense that Santorum, who never met an earmark he didn’t love, who voted against NAFTA, who worked with Tom Delay to set up the “K Street Project,” is a conservative. No one is trying to “kneecap” the conservative in this race, because there is no conservative in this race. They are all better than Obama — every single one of them — but NONE can be called conservative. So you’ll have to choose. Does religious zealotry win out over corruption and big spending? Pick Santorum. Does debate performance win out over corruption, ugly personal baggage, and self-aggrandizement? Pick Gingrich. Does burning the mother down win out over bouts of insanity? Pick Paul. Does electability win out over a record of center-left policies? Pick Romney. Does religious zealotry and a pretty good jobs record win out over open borders and cringe-worthy gaffes? Pick Perry.

There are no conservatives here, but still, they are ALL better than Obama. Far better. Miles better. So pick one. But don’t pretend you are picking “the conservative in this race.” He doesn’t exist for 2012.

Oh, Newt’s got plenty of other baggage. But the divorces will be hyped ad nauseum if he were the nominee. And don’t think for one second that wouldn’t hurt him badly with social conservatives and women voters.

Doughboy on January 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I am a female and a social as well as fiscal conservative and I can forgive Newt’s divorces. As a matter of fact for me they don’t even enter my radar. Romneycare, now that is something I just have not been able to get over.

Mind you if he is our nominee (Romney) I will vote for him over PBHO. I will not be happy about it but I’ll do it.

Many people want to give Romney a pass on his liberal tenure as governor of Massachusetts because of the political make-up of that state. Well Pennsylvania isn’t Massachusetts but it is a solidly blue state and Santorum was the most conservative senator that state has had in over seventy years. Mr. Romney was a typical New England Republican.

Alan Colmes part of a Rick Santorum conspiracy? I guess anything is possible, but that’s reaching.

listens2glenn on January 4, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I doubt it, but if it was to inoculate him from that old story so be it. It’s low hanging fruit that shouldn’t be touched in the first place. It’s not like I am more inclined toward Santorum because of it. I just want it taken off the table because it’s personal. It was headed into the Palin’s not Trig’s mother conspiracy territory. Colmes: They took their dead baby home to play with it (really that was their motivation/) Colmes didn’t think that sounded like a yucky thing to say maybe he’s lost his ability to tell? It’s really just old gossip.

I disagree with your religious zealotry charge against Santorum. I highly doubt he is as bad as many here (who are paid Romney people) are saying. I will hear him out and see just how much of a zealot he is.

Bottom line: Santorum is NOT Obama. Romney is NOT Obama. Gingrich is NOT Obama. Perry is NOT Obama. Rinse and repeat.

While the “perfect” candidate is not running, the worse POTUS in my lifetime is still in the White House. I’ll be happy just to get him out of there before the damage becomes permanent.

IF Santorum is able to go all the way with his White House quest, I’m sure he’ll help repeal Obamacare, reverse a bunch of executive orders, and attempt to work with a GOP lead Congress to undo some of the more extreme elements of Democratic rule from the last few years.

And this is why I’d have a hard time supporting a candidate like Santorum. Socially, I’m pretty conservative myself, I loath abortion, and I hate the anti-religious garbage that is taught in most schools. But, I do NOT want to replace one brand of heavy handed intrusion with another. Particularly when I feel said brand may be passively hostile towards less mainstream religions.

Plus, I don’t think Santorum can beat Obama. If there’s anything that could galvanize democrats and send independents back to the left, its a candidate that may be overtly hostile towards homosexuals. Like it or not, most people do not want to these groups singled out, and Santorum has shown ample willingness to do just that. That doesn’t mean we can never again have a candidate that is willing to protect the sanctity of marriage, but it has to be a candidate that can be subtle about it, and on social issues Santorum isn’t subtle.

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to antagonize anybody here. I readily suspect some people will take it that way, and may take issue with my views even if they don’t think I’m being antagonistic. Still, nothing ventured nothing gained. Somebody has to be willing to make these points, might as well be me.

You’re crazy if you think Iowans will vote for a small government conservative. One question for you all….Who Won Iowa Four Years Ago??
They seem to have a thing for big government christian nanny staters.

Just like they were scared to death of Cain, and Bachmann, and Palin…right? Rick Santorum has a clear record of voting for earmark after earmark, while also supporting the expansion of the federal prerogative with regards to health care and education.

I disagree with your religious zealotry charge against Santorum. I highly doubt he is as bad as many here (who are paid Romney people) are saying. I will hear him out and see just how much of a zealot he is.

KickandSwimMom on January 4, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Yep…..and if anyone thinks that Mitt won’t be portrayed as a religious zealot, anti-gay-marriage, control-freak because of his Mormon religion, you’ve got another thing coming. How is Mitt going to explain how “white” Mormonism is and always has been?